Holding

Rule 15(2) is a mandatory provision; a departmental enquiry conducted without the Additional Commissioner’s prior approval is invalid, rendering the dismissal unlawful.

Summary

Head Constable Vijay Singh was dismissed after a departmental enquiry for allegedly failing to follow diary procedures and overwriting entries. The enquiry was preceded by a preliminary enquiry, but the department did not obtain prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Police as mandated by Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. The Supreme Court examined whether this procedural requirement is mandatory and, if breached, whether it vitiates the enquiry and dismissal. The Court held that Rule 15(2) is a mandatory provision that must be strictly complied with; the failure to secure the required approval rendered the departmental enquiry invalid. Consequently, the dismissal order was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be reinstated, though he was not entitled to back wages. The Court also noted that a fresh enquiry could be initiated if proper approval is obtained.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 requires mandatory prior approval of the Additional Commissioner before ordering a departmental enquiry when a preliminary enquiry discloses a cognizable offence.
Whether the absence of such prior approval invalidates the departmental enquiry and the consequent dismissal of the officer.
What relief is appropriate upon setting aside the dismissal order.

Legislation cited

Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980s. Rule 15(1), s. Rule 15(2)

Subjects

departmental enquirymandatory ruleprior approvalDelhi Police Rulesdismissalreinstatementpolice service discipline

Judgment

VIJAY SINGH A
-\ v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

[H.K. SEMA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] B

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980-r. 15(2)-Requirement
)
under-Of prior approval from Additional Commissioner of Police for
conducting departmental enquily-Held, is mandatory-On facts, Appellant
Head Constable was dismissed for misconduct pursuant to departmental
c
enquiry which was conducted without prior approval as required under
. r. 15(2)-/t being a case of violation of mandatory provisions of law, order
of dismissal set aside-Service Law-Dismissal.

Appellant, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, was served with the charge D
that he did not follow the procedure while entering a statement in the Dai\y
Diary and also made some overwriting therein with ulterior motive. The charge .
was framed after a preliminary enquiry. Subsequently Departmental enquiry
was held and Appellant was dismissed from service.

The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is E
whether there was violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1980 inasmuch as departmental enquiry was ordered
without obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police,
therefore the entire enquiry was vitiated and hence the dismissal of Appellant
is liable to be set aside.
F
} Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A cursory reading of sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 would clearly
show that the said Rule is mandatory. It has to be followed strictly in letter
and spirit. !Para 5) 114-E]
G
1.2. A reading of Rule 15(1) & (2) together and the language employed
- therein clearly discloses that a preliminary enquiry is held only in cases of
allegation, which is of weak character and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry

11
H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 3 S.C.R.

A is to be held to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter; to
collect the prosecution evidence; to judge quantum of default and to bring
relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In
cases, where specific information is available, a preliminary enquiry is not
necessary and a departmental enquiry may be ordered by the dis<:iplinary
B authority straightaway. It is because of this reason sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 is
couched in such a way as a defence to the delinquent officer. The Additional
Commissioner of Police being higher in hierarchy next to DGP, the
requirement of his approval is mandatory, so that the delinquent officer is not
prejudiced or harassed unnecessarily in a departmental enquiry. Such
approval, if any, must also be accorded after due application of mind. It is a
C case of violation of mandatory provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal must
succeed. The appellant was dismissed by an order preceded by an enquiry.
The order of dismissal is set aside. The appellant shall be re-instated
forthwith. [Para 7[ [15-C, D, E)

2. The appellant was dismissed on 21.1.1998 and since then he is out of
D service till date. The appellant would be attaining the age of superannuation
on March 31, 2012. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case
and the nature of misconduct that is alleged to have been committed by the
appellant as a police officer and applying the principle of 'no work no pay' he
shall not be entitled to back wages from 21.1.1998 till re-instatement. Also
E keeping in view the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by the
appellant, as a police officer, this order would not preclude the disciplinary
authority to initiate a fresh proceeding from the stage of obtaining prior
approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police, if so advised. In the event
of the authority deciding to hold fresh enquiry from the stage of obtaining
prior approval from Additional Commissioner of Police, they may resort to
F the principle laid down by this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
& Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., [Paras 8 and 91 [15-F-HI
j

Managing Director, EC/L, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.,
11993[ 4 sec 727, referred to.

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7212 of2005.

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 9.7.2003 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in C.W. No. 4220/2003.

M.N. Krishnamani, Ashwani Bhardwaj and S. Pani for the Appellant.
H
VJJA Y SINGH v. U. 0.1. [SEMA. J.] 13
B. Datta, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, Imtiaz Ahmed, Anil Katiyar, D.S. Mehra, A
Indra Sawhney and Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
-1

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H.K. SEMA, J. I. The appellant was head constable in Delhi Police. He
was served with the charge, substance of which reads:- B
"On 29.3.95 a case FIR No.236/95 u/s 325/34 !PC PS Sultanpuri was
registered by HC Vijay Singh No.310/NW after the receipt of MLC
report of Sh. Nand Kishore. In the FIR, the HC showed the name of
y Sh. Ram Raj as an accused including the other persons. The HC also
mentioned that he recorded the statement of Sh. Nand Kishore on C
4.3.95. On scrutiny it was found that there was overwriting in DD
No. JO, dated 4.3.95 which was written by the HC on 4.3.95 and is very
much visible. As per procedure HC Vijay Singh, was supposed to
enter the statement of Sh. Nand Kishore in the daily diary on the same
day to avoid doubt, but the HC failed to do so and did not follow the D
procedure and also made some over writing in daily diary with ulterior
motive."

2. Admittedly, the charge was framed after a preliminary enquiry was
conducted by PW-4 Sh.Bhairo Singh, ACP Kamla Market, Delhi. An enquiry
was conducted by PW-4 and its report was submitted to DCP/North-West E
Dist!. Delhi on 21.8.95 which was marked as Exhibit PW-4/A.

3. Many grounds have been urged before us. The principle contention
of Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel is, however, rested on the question
of violation of Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1980 ( in short 'the Rules' ). It is contended by the counsel that Rule 15(2) F
mandates that in a case in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission
> of a cognizable offence, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining
prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to
whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental
enquiry should be held. He would further contend that in the present case
a departmental enquiry was held preceded by a preliminary enquiry conducted G
by PW-4 but no prior approval was obtained from the Additional Commissioner
of Police, therefore, the entire enquiry vitiates. This being the pure question
of law, we have directed the respondent to produce the record as to whether
prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police was obtained or not.
H
14 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Mr.Dutta, learned ASG fairly submitted that the record does not disclose that
prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police was obtained. A
supplementary affidavit was, however, filed by one Mr.Ajay Kumar, Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Police Control Room, Delhi. It is averred in paragraph
2 of the supplementary affidavit that no preliminary enquiry was ordered,
B hence the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police as required
under Rule 15(2) of the Rules for conducting departmental enquiry was neither
required nor the same was taken. To say the least, this averment is contrary
to the statement of PW-4. A preliminary enquiry is a fact f:nding enquiry. Its
purpose is (i) to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter(s),
(ii) to collect prosecution evidence, (iii) to judge quantum of default and (iv) -.,·
C to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental
enquiry. In the present case, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by PW-4
himself and a report was submitted by him, marked as Exhibit PW-4/A during
the enquiry.

4. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 reads:
D
"In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of
a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his
official relations with the pubic, departmental enquiry shall be ordered
after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police
concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and
E investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held".

5. A cursory reading of sub-rule 2 would clearly show that the said Rule is
mandatory. It has to be followed strictly in letter and spirit.

6. To appreciate the present controversy in proper perspective Rule
F 15( I) & (2) of the Rules are reproduced:
"IS.Preliminary enquiries -(I) A preliminary enquiry is a fact finding
enquiry. Its purpose is (i) to establish the nature of default and
identity of defaulter(s), (ii) to collect prosecution evidence, (iii) to
judge quantum of default and (iv) to bring relevant documents on
G record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In cases where
specific information covering the above-mentioned points exists a
Preliminary Enquiry need not be held and Departmental enquiry may
be ordered by the disciplinary authority straightaway. Jn all other ,_
cases, a preliminary enquiry shall normally precede a departmental
H
VJ.TAY SINGH v. U.0.1. [SEMA. J.] 15
enquiry. A
(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission
of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his
official relations with the pubic, departmental enquiry shall be ordered
after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police
concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and B
investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held".

(3) ................."

7. A reading of Rule 15(1 )&(2) together and the language employed
therein clearly discloses that a preliminary enquiry is held only in cases of C
allegation, which is of weak character and, therefore, a preliminary enquiry is
to be held to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter; to
collect the prosecution evidence; to judge quantum of default and to bring
relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In
cases, where specific information is available, a preliminary enquiry is not
necessary and a departmental enquiry may be ordered by the disciplinary D
authority straightaway. It is because of this reason sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 is
couched in such a way as a defence to the delinquent officer. The Additional
·• Commissioner of Police being higher in hierarchy next to DGP, the requirement
of his approval is mandatory, so that the delinquent officer is not prejudiced
or harassed unnecessarily in a departmental enquiry. Such approval, if any, E
must also be accorded after due application of mind. It is a case of violation
of mandatory provisions of law. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. The
appellant was dismissed by an order dated 21.1.1998 preceded by an enquiry.
The order of dismissal is set aside. The appellant shall be re-instated forthwith.
The orders of the Appellate Authority, the Revisional Authority and the High
Court are set aside. F
8. This takes us to consider as to what relief the appellant is entitled
to. The appellant was dismissed on 21. I .1998 and since then he is out of
service till date. The appellant would be attaining the age of superannuation
on March 31,2012.
G
9. Having regards the facts and circumstances of this case and the
nature of misconduct that is alleged to have been committed by the appellant
as a police officer and applying the principle of 'no work no pay' he shall not
be entitled to back wages from 21.1.1998 till re-instatement. Also keeping in
H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A view the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by the appellant,
as a police officer, this order would not preclude the disciplinary authority to
initiate a fresh proceeding from the stage of obtaining prior approval of the
Additional Commissioner of Police, if so advised. In the event of the authority
so decide to hold fresh enquiry from the stage of obtaining prior approval
B from Additional Commissioner of Police, they may resort to the principle laid
down by this Court in paragraph 3 l in Managing Director, EC/l, Hyderabad
& Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., [1993] 4 SCC 727. Subject to the aforestated··
observation, this appeal is allowed. No costs.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

J

>·